Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?

Click to expand...

To hit theatrical break-even on the production budget, yes, that's the case as a broad rule of thumb. A movie that misses theatrical breakeven can still turn a profit, though, via revenue from TV, DVD, etc. Plus some films can generate a lot of money in product placement and licensing fees for merchandising.

For example, here are the pertinent parts of an article from Variety about Lions for Lambs in 2007:

The weak box office performance of “Lions for Lambs” marks a rough start for Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner’s United Artists, with the film looking likely to gross no more than $60 million worldwide.

Pic, which boasted the marquee trio of Cruise, Redford (who also directed) and Meryl Streep, isn’t expected to hit the $20 million mark in the U.S. MGM distributed Stateside, and 20th Century Fox Intl. has it overseas.

Removing some of the sting is the fact that the film cost only $35 million to produce.

Click to expand...

Some say “Lions” could lose as much as $25 million, although UA and parent company MGM won’t comment on any figures. They said that “Lions” could even be profitable once it gets into its home entertainment and television runs.

Click to expand...

And here's Variety on Titanic in December 1997:

The cost to make and market "Titanic" is reportedly close to $300 million. A worldwide gross of $425 million would return about $200 million to the studio, leaving $100 million to be made up by global video, television and other ancillary revenues.

Click to expand...

And again in January 1998:

"This picture ("Titanic") has to do something like $500 million [worldwide] just to break even," said a senior production exec. "The good news is that, despite its three hours, it might actually happen."

Click to expand...

And a more recent report, this one from CBS/AP, one of many such reports, on John Carter:

The Walt Disney Co. said it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March. That ranks it among Hollywood's all-time biggest money-losers.

Directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, the 3-D effects-laden movie about a Civil War veteran transplanted to Mars was already headed to the "Red Ink Planet," according to Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz. Yet he expected a write-down of about half that size.

Disney said "John Carter" has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide so far. But ticket sales are split roughly in half with theater owners. The movie's production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with about $100 million more spent on marketing.

Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?

Click to expand...

To hit theatrical break-even on the production budget, yes, that's the case as a broad rule of thumb. A movie that misses theatrical breakeven can still turn a profit, though, via revenue from TV, DVD, etc. Plus some films can generate a lot of money in product placement and licensing fees for merchandising.

For example, here are the pertinent parts of an article from Variety about Lions for Lambs in 2007:

The weak box office performance of “Lions for Lambs” marks a rough start for Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner’s United Artists, with the film looking likely to gross no more than $60 million worldwide.

Pic, which boasted the marquee trio of Cruise, Redford (who also directed) and Meryl Streep, isn’t expected to hit the $20 million mark in the U.S. MGM distributed Stateside, and 20th Century Fox Intl. has it overseas.

Removing some of the sting is the fact that the film cost only $35 million to produce.

Click to expand...

And here's Variety on Titanic in December 1997:

And again in January 1998:

"This picture ("Titanic") has to do something like $500 million [worldwide] just to break even," said a senior production exec. "The good news is that, despite its three hours, it might actually happen."

Click to expand...

And a more recent report, this one from CBS/AP, one of many such reports, on John Carter:

The Walt Disney Co. said it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March. That ranks it among Hollywood's all-time biggest money-losers.

Directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, the 3-D effects-laden movie about a Civil War veteran transplanted to Mars was already headed to the "Red Ink Planet," according to Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz. Yet he expected a write-down of about half that size.

Disney said "John Carter" has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide so far. But ticket sales are split roughly in half with theater owners. The movie's production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with about $100 million more spent on marketing.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The idea that a movie's published production budget has anything to do with what that film cost in reality is simply just laughable.

Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:

As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you. You seemed confused as to what I wanted when I suggested going with tickets sold, so I corrected you. For some reason you insisted, so I counter-insisted. I don't care at all for how empty a single theatre want, since what I'd like to know is how many times the movie was seen in its theatrical run.

Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:

As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you. You seemed confused as to what I wanted when I suggested going with tickets sold, so I corrected you. For some reason you insisted, so I counter-insisted. I don't care at all for how empty a single theatre want, since what I'd like to know is how many times the movie was seen in its theatrical run.

Click to expand...

Clearly you don't follow. So there's a record of clarity, I'll recap, but this is getting tiresome.

In post #2346, you commented on what I said in post #2345, by saying, "Yeah but nation- or worldwide would average that out."

What you said there in post #2346 was not only conjectural and false (for the reason I stated in post #2365), but also, it warranted my saying so, because what I said in post #2345 was, in context, in response to a very particular question from another poster, whose question I even quoted in post #2345, that was asked in post #2340.

Post #2345 wasn't about what you were talking about at all. The question in post #2340 was whether tickets sold is "the best" measure of popularity. You already indicated you knew it wasn't perfect in post #2337, where you also made it clear what you wanted to know. I don't know how it could have been any clearer.

Everything so far between you and me after that point has been in this context. Just go back and reconsider post #2345. I really don't think I'm "confused as to what [you] wanted" as you say, since I wasn't even addressing you to begin with in post #2345!

The idea that a movie's published production budget has anything to do with what that film cost in reality is simply just laughable.

Click to expand...

The studios typically provide a budget figure to the media. That budget may or may not reflect reality. If anything the studios lowball. But the reported budget figure can be used to broadly establish how successful a film is and it can be used for purposes of figuring out whether a film has a shot at a sequel. If the worldwide gross isn't at least double the reported production budget then a direct sequel almost certainly isn't going to happen. I can only think of two films that got direct sequels despite grossing less than their reported production budgets, both Paramount releases: Star Trek: Insurrection and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and the latter was made on a reduced budget and with significant cast changes.

An outside observer obviously doesn't know the granular details of any given movie's financial position, but there's enough coverage from journalists and financial analysts that the ecomomics of the movie industry aren't a complete mystery.

In post #2346, you commented on what I said in post #2345, by saying, "Yeah but nation- or worldwide would average that out."

Click to expand...

Yeah, again because I want to know how many tickets were sold. I don't care about tickets not sold.

What you said there in post #2346 was not only conjectural and false (for the reason I stated in post #2365), but also, it warranted my saying so, because what I said in post #2345 was, in context, in response to a very particular question from another poster, whose question I even quoted in post #2345, that was asked in post #2340.

Click to expand...

You can be bothered to check the post numbers but not quote them ? I'm not going back and make your case for you.

Post #2345 wasn't about what you were talking about at all.

Click to expand...

Well I guess that makes the whole discussion between us pointless, then.

That and you cannot tell me marketing and distribution of a film equals the budget of a film. That's plain stupid math.

Click to expand...

Steven Soderbergh has been talking a lot lately about the financial state of the industry and how it's impacting what gets made. Here's one of the things he said recently:

“[Studios] don’t look at the singles or the doubles as being worth the money or the man hours. Psychologically, it’s more comforting to spend $60m promoting a movie that costs 100, than it does to spend $60m for a movie that costs 10. I know what you’re thinking: If it costs 10 you’re going to be in profit sooner. Maybe not. Here’s why: Okay. $10m movie, 60m to promote it, that’s 70, so you’ve got to gross 140 to get out. Now you’ve got a $100m movie, you’re going spend 60 to promote it. You’ve got to get 320 to get out. How many $10m movies make 140 million dollars? Not many. How many $100m movies make 320? A pretty good number, and there’s this sort of domino effect that happens too. Bigger home video sales, bigger TV sales, so you can see the forces that are sort of draining in one direction in the business.”

I applaud the work of J. J. and the world attention he has brought to STID.
Pine, Quinto, Zoe, Pegg and Cumberbatch won the attention of many people because of their performance.
There will be more interested in Star Trek 3.